I feel like so much of the first part of this article applies to a lot of situations! So thank you! The "both sides" of climate change, for example. I mean, 97% agreement is probably as close to consensus as you'll ever get on any issue! It's OK for disagreement to happen and it's also OK for us to say "but it's not substantive."
Quoting Tim Walz from the VP debate today... "Now, you made a question about— I made a note of this. Economists can’t be trusted, science can’t be trusted, national security folks can’t be trusted. If you’re going to be president, you don’t have all the answers. Donald Trump believes he does. Pro tip of the day is that if you need heart surgery, listen to people at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, not Donald Trump."
I feel like so much of the first part of this article applies to a lot of situations! So thank you! The "both sides" of climate change, for example. I mean, 97% agreement is probably as close to consensus as you'll ever get on any issue! It's OK for disagreement to happen and it's also OK for us to say "but it's not substantive."
Quoting Tim Walz from the VP debate today... "Now, you made a question about— I made a note of this. Economists can’t be trusted, science can’t be trusted, national security folks can’t be trusted. If you’re going to be president, you don’t have all the answers. Donald Trump believes he does. Pro tip of the day is that if you need heart surgery, listen to people at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, not Donald Trump."
Thanks, and I totally agree! “1% of people are on my side. So who can really tell who’s right?!?!”
In the worst case the existence of consensus is used as evidence of conspiracy 🤦🏼♀️
Like that’s not how we do science.